0.90
#...
·
 |
|---|
|
Hello, I'm new to this, picking up the pieces as I go parallel with school. I currently own a 6'' StarSense Explorer dx6 and am able to take clear photos with it. However, I was just wondering where the next step would be from here - figured I should create a roadmap for the future when it came to this. I'm hoping to stay as an SCT user but am ready to move to a Dob or anything more high-powered than the telescope I currently own. |
0.00
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
It really depends on what you want to do. A 6" SCT isn't perfect for anything, but like any telescope is a container full of compromises that allows for many options. With the right mount, with or without focal reduction, it can be fine for EAA, DSO imaging, and lunar and planetary imaging without the need for an a "step up" in terms of the actual telescope. I've seen fantastic results on Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn with C6s. I think 150mm is the threshold where things start getting interesting in lunar and planetary imaging. I'm certain it is capable of decent DSO astrophotography for anyone so inclined. I say this as someone who owns a C6, C9.25, and a C11. Until recently, I also owned a C8 but I traded it for a 90mm triplet. For planetary imaging, you obviously want the most aperture you can easily transport and afford. If your interest lies in getting pretty pictures of deep sky objects, then a small refractor (see 90mm trade above) on a quality mount would be advisable, but not exactly necessary. More aperture is not as important in that niche as a high quality mount overbuilt for the telescope it tracks is. For planetary imaging, aperture rules. While excellent tracking is certainly a plus, it isn't necessary. Some people have hand-tracked excellent planetary images, though as a matter of convenience, this isn't advised. But a motorized, goto Dob does well for that niche. A SCT on a tracking mount (equatorial preferred by me but certainly not necessary) excels in this area, largely as a matter of convenience and a naturally longish focal length. If you are visual only, I'd suggest going to a C9.25 or larger or a 10" dobsonian at a minimum if you want that "wow factor." By "wow factor," I mean the step up in aperture you'll need to be amazed by the difference in performance. Sure, an 8" SCT or Dob would offer better performance visually, but it might not leave you wondering why you didn't just start out with an 8" telescope. If you have a club anywhere nearby you, I suggest going to one of their public viewing nights to get an idea of the sizes of larger scopes you'd like to use. "Use" is the key word here. Telescope weight and inconvenience seem to rise exponentially as aperture increases for most production models. The mounts they require, whether alt-az or equatorial, become substantially larger. They take longer to cool to ambient temperature. The most powerful telescope you can own is the one that you feel like taking outside when it is below well freezing or the mosquitos are biting. More aperture does not do anything if one is unwilling to use it. People may advise specific telescope models or even apertures, but really this is all about you and your self-understanding of what it is you want to do. There is no perfect telescope for every target, observing/imagining priority, or person. It is why many of us have multiple telescopes. Additionally, everyone develops preferences. Some people will have nothing less than pinpoint stars to the edge of wide, sweeping fields. A triplet refractor is something they'll get on a waiting list that lasts years just for the opportunity to own. Other people don't operate anything that is less than f/15 and require folded optics. Arguments sometimes ensue over which telescope is "better." Assuming quality optics, the only "better" telescope is the one you'll use. |
